Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabric Ventures

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fabric Ventures

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coverage of this firm consists of this mention in a Reuters piece on bitcoin VCs and then some passing mentions in press releases. Not sufficient for WP:GNG. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me understand what further sources are typically required? There are mentions of Fabric Ventures in Bloomberg, Forbes, Wayra etc. Are there specific details that need to be verified? The level of detail is similar to other VC firms I have come across. Emersoi (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The "mentions" in Bloomberg, Forbes, etc, all rely on company announcements or PR and fail ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 10:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The provided sources are mostly not good. The Forbes source is not even about them. Google news actually brings up many more mentions of the company, but the seem to be in the form of passing mentions. In this currently format it is non-notable, but should someone find more better sources, perhaps it can be reconsidered. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.